[Snort-users] Re: CAUTION: Long Rant!!! Re: [Snort-sigs] Broken 1429.2 (POLICY poll.gotomypc.com access)

Paul Schmehl pauls at ...6838...
Tue Oct 12 14:57:58 EDT 2004

--On Tuesday, October 12, 2004 02:20:31 PM -0500 Matt Jonkman 
<matt at ...12231...> wrote:

Since this thread has been cross-posted to hell and back, I decided to 
leave them all in there.  Normally I'd simply email the list since anyone 
subscribed to the list should see it just fine without needing a 
personalized copy.  {{sigh}}
> 2. I don't think it unreasonable to hawk your wares once in a while in
> the normal course of discussion.

I do.  I don't read the snort list to find out about products.  I read the 
snort list to learn more about snort and keep up with the development 
cycle.  "Hawk[ing] your wares" doesn't fit in to that.  There's nothing 
wrong with a sig that points to your site, but don't "hawk your wares" 
here.  If you have something new going on, one simple announcement post (if 
it's directly related to snort) should be sufficient.  "Seeding" various 
threads with hints about your great products is offensive.
> BTW: The links you provided weren't a discussion with Eric in it as far
> as I saw.
That isn't what Bamm said.  What he said was "I think this [0] is the post 
you were refering to".

I read the post and Brian's response.  If "professionals" are going to take 
offense to an expert saying "Don't do that" and "That's wrong", then 
perhaps they're not professionals.  Brian is one of the foremost experts 
*in the world* on writing snort sigs, but even *I*, a rank amateur when it 
comes to sigs know that you don't use nocase with non-alpha characters and 
you don't use reserved sid numbers, for Pete's sake.  If someone takes 
offense to having *that* pointed out to them, then don't bother to post 
sigs.  It strikes me as a case of, "I don't really know what this does, but 
it can't hurt to have it in there" kind of thinking that is usually done by 
people who don't really understand what they're doing.

Email lacks the ability to convey emotion.  It therefore sometimes seems 
blunt.  Either learn to accept that or prepare to be constantly offended. 
The only "attitude" I've seen in Brian is a busy expert dealing with the 
facts and not being verbose about it.

I think Eric is wrong.  I also think anyone else who criticizes Brian for 
his "attitude" is wrong.  They need to grow up and learn to accept 
constructive criticism, even when it's not delivered in a velvet jewel case.

> So not sure about what you were referring to. But I hope we can
> just drop it.
> The point of the thread is to try to build a productive working
> relationship between bleeding snort and it's users, and
> snort.org/sourcefire. No personal squabbles are more important than that
> (or even relevant to this list). We need to grow up. Myself included in
> that statement.
I thought the point of the thread was to diss Brian.  "I will have to 
concur with Matt Jonkman here. You have a track record of degrading people 
in open forums and have done so to me on several occasions with no 
hesitation since I first started posting."

I don't see much "productive working relationship" building there.

Fire away.  I'm going back to work.

Paul Schmehl (pauls at ...6838...)
Adjunct Information Security Officer
The University of Texas at Dallas
AVIEN Founding Member

More information about the Snort-users mailing list